Author
Topic: Why water on Earth and not Venus? (Read 20968 times)

since it was captured by sun the properties of surface has changed due to closeness. the surface temperature is close to 400 degrees. Its surface is NOT made of chodritic material ..The surface is quite smooth.I do not claim living things.If you try to simulate the creation of Sun and associated planets you will find that Venus couldnt have formed. Venus look very similar to earth.. and was once covered with ICE. Its surface has water.This is my prediction.

Its surface is said to be covered with clouds of H2So4which I think formed from H2O and SO2 .. therefore atleast once there was water...I think it was covered with ICe and then it went thorugh this SUN only to find its new defintion.

Its surface is NOT made of chodritic material ..The surface is quite smooth.

I suspect that the best plan would be to totally ignore the rubbish you are spouting. Do you know what chondritic material is? The entire planet is largely made of chondritic material. This (bar the volatiles) is a close approximation to solar composition and constitutes the bulk of the solid material which condensed in the inner solar system in the accretion disc. Both rough and smooth terrains are possible. Guess what? When we examine the surface of Venus with radar, or with surface landers, we find that it is often rough. Are you just making stuff up to amuse yourself?

I see you have added a further post. More nonsense - you are actually claiming Venus went through the sun. At least Velikovsky produced evidence to support his weird contentions. Why would you pollute a science forum with such nonsense?

I have right to speech and expression and I will not bow down to such non sensical theories which are being ciruclated in this forum... tommorow the kids are goind to read and their minds will spoiled by this hopelessly mad theories.

Anyways no matter Velikovsky claimed is his personal claimed.. this is my claim... and contraditction which you see is blinded by your racial superstitions...you people are not worth a piece of logic.

Actually, you don't. You have only such rights as the administrators and moderators of this forum choose to give you. And they may take away any or all of these rights, at any time, for any reason. Until they do you certainly have the opportunity to spout unsubstantiated, disconnected, infantile nonsense. I see you are taking full advantage of this opportunity. Equally I have the opportunity (not the right) to point out how unscientific your methodology and your claims are.

I will not bow down to such non sensical theories which are being circulated in this forum... tomorrow the kids are going to read and their minds will spoiled by this hopelessly mad theories.

So your baseless, ephemeral speculations are superior to the properly researched, well validated, peer reviewed concepts explained by many of the posters on this forum. A theory of planetary formation that represents hundreds of thousands of man hours of observation, speculation, hypothesising, testing, and validating is inferior to your verbal diarrhoea on the same topic? I have doubts about that.I am hopeful that even an uneducated kid would recognise your waffle as pure nonsense.

The earth is tilted 23 degrees All The Time! So when it is on one side of its orbit, the south is tilted toward and the north away, and when it is on the other side, the south is tilted away, and the north tilted towards, Because The Sun Is Now On The Other Side !

Ball your fist and hold it in the air. This is the sun. hold your other hand pointing up then tilt it. move it around your other hand without changing the tilt at all. You can see that on one side the south is pointing towards the sun, it's summer in the southern hemisphere. On the other side of the orbit, it's summer in the northern hemisphere!!

Actually the earth doesn't tilt at 23 degrees All The Time. I believe the Earth's tilt varies between 21.5 & 24.5 degrees in a cycle of approximately 42 000 years. When the tilt increases summers are hotter and winters are colder, when the tilt decreases the affects of the seasons are moderated. The orbit also stretches and wobbles every 95 000 and 21 000 years respectively.

That doesn't answer the question of course (sorry) but I'm new here and have to start somewhere.

There is no such thing as well validated peer reviewed concepts. A theory of planetary formation that represents hundreds of thousands of man hours of observation, speculation, hypothesising, testing, and validating does not mean the theorising is correct, it just means that a lot of people have agreed with someone else's interpretation of the evidence. You cannot test theories about planetary formation in our timescale. You mentioned in another post satellite measurements. These count for absolutely nothing in the timescale of planetary development, all they represent is the best guesswork available at a given point in time, nothing more and nothing less. The same goes for accepted literature on planets and the universe. The best guesswork can also be totally off target and many advances in science have been brought about by people going in totally the opposite direction to the majority of unquestioning followers of science.

It may be prudent of you to refrain from attacking the person. In order to get your point across as this might intimidate some people. Personally I find your ill-mannered outbursts amusing, but others may feel you are trying to bully them into agreeing with your own beliefs.

Logged

another_someone

I have right to speech and expression and I will not bow down to such non sensical theories which are being ciruclated in this forum... tommorow the kids are goind to read and their minds will spoiled by this hopelessly mad theories.

You have a right to free speech to the extent that you allow the same to others, and respect other's ideas and visions as you would wish your own to be respected.

Where you start your own threads on topics, we shall give you a lot of latitude to go your own way within those threads, but I must ask you not to abuse threads other people have started, and most of all, don't abuse other people's ideas, as they may believe them as much as you believe yours.

The ideas circulated on this forum are for the most part (although we allow a fair amount of latitude in the matter) what is generally accepted as the best current theory there is. Some of it may no doubt be shown to be incorrect in time (although saying that something is incorrect is not to say that your replacement theory, untested as it is, is the correct one); but it is the starting point that most people will want to start with - some no doubt will go on in their careers to challenge some of those ideas, but they will want to start doing so by first having a good grounding in what it is they are about to challenge. I would ask you to allow them at least the courtesy to understand what is the existing set of beliefs, however much you may personally disagree with the established beliefs.

Peer reviewed concepts are a cornerstone of the modern scientific method. When several researchers, approaching a problem from a variety of angles, produce results and hypotheses that mutually support each other we rightly say these are well validated.To claim that these do no exist is equivalent to saying that modern science is invalid. That seems an odd attitude to bring to a science forum, don't you think?

A theory of planetary formation that represents hundreds of thousands of man hours of observation, speculation, hypothesising, testing, and validating does not mean the theorising is correct, it just means that a lot of people have agreed with someone else's interpretation of the evidence.

Absolutely true. But when the agreement is as extensive as it is in the case of planetary formation, then the probability is high that the core of the theory is valid. This certainly the case for the accretion theory of planetary formation.

You mentioned in another post satellite measurements. These count for absolutely nothing in the timescale of planetary development,

They were introduced to counter your incorrect statement that Venus was smooth. I notice you never responded to this refutation of your claim. Indeed, that seems to part of your modus operandi: make a bizarre claim, then ignore anyone who demonstrates you were incorrect, or esle make an even more bizarre, unrelated claim.

The best guesswork can also be totally off target and many advances in science have been brought about by people going in totally the opposite direction to the majority of unquestioning followers of science.

But this typically only works when they fully understand the current theory. You have offered ample evidence that this is not the case for yourself.

I have not attacked you. You are probably a thoroughly decent chap, a pillar of the community, a stalwart family member etc. Rather, I have attacked the mindless drivel you have been posting. I trust you see the distinction..

Personally I find your ill-mannered outbursts amusing, but others may feel you are trying to bully them into agreeing with your own beliefs.

I am delighted you have taken them in a light hearted fashion. I would like to clarify one point. Using the word outburst implies a significant emotional content in the communication. When I describe your notions as "verbal diarrhoea" I am, I believe, being quite objective. The only emotion present is a passionate commitment to accuracy in communications about science.

I have looked for Venus is smooth on this thread? can you show me where I said it so I can see the context it was written in? I may have been referring to all planets beginning smooth with little reaction to change the planetary surface. If so I still hold this to being true.

You did insult me personally! But I am thick skinned. I was referring to you applying the same terse remarks to others in the forum.

Just because a lot of people are agreeing with a particular theory does nothing repeat absolutely nothing towards validating it! Peer review is great for preventing challengers to old theories. The new peer review system however is much better. Now we can at least nominate our own Peer Reviewers. But I suspect if controversy rears it's ugly head the peer review advocators will again insist on supplying their peer reviewers for the final word. "Not invented here syndrome"

Let me give you a for instance. Only a few years ago people believed in the bible's account of the age of the planet. Now the general consensus is that the Earth is much older, meaning the vast majority of well meaning people were evidently wrong. Following this, the World was believed to be flat by the vast majority. Did this make these wild assumptions right? No it did not, again the majority of intelligent people were wrong. One of the most intelligent people of out time confirmed that the Universe and the sun could not revolve around the Earth.

For a good account of verbal diarrhoea we need not look further than the Big Bang hypothesis and the Black Hole hypothesis!

I think the problem with everyone looking into space to form a new theory is that itís too difficult for him or her to challenge existing theories here on Earth. Treading on the toes of academia will undoubtedly be frowned upon and punished accordingly.

The sheer arrogance of people that believe they understand everything and nothing should be questioned never ceases to amaze me. How in the hell are we expected to advance science if doubting the existing structure is not allowed?

I placed a reply in the other thread adding evidence to the growth of the planet & incoming particles, further supporting it with evidence of huge swathes of dust observed by European Astrologers thought to be the building blocks of planets and everything in and around them. Precisely the point I was making when you accused me of being mentally unstable, and of poor education and low intelligence if memory serves me right.

As time progresses much of todayís science will of course be rendered invalid. Believe it or not but this is considered as progress.

Andrew,1. I confused your own unusual views with the equally unusual views of dkv. It was he that referred to Venus as being smooth. I regret the confusion.2. You made this observation "Just because a lot of people are agreeing with a particular theory does nothing repeat absolutely nothing towards validating it!"You are mistaken. The simple act of agreement is by itself meaningless. However, when many experts in a field agree with a hypothesis because they have reviewed the evidence, or duplicated the experiments, then this does validate the hypothesis. This is how science works. You may believe this is not how it should work - that is your right. It does not alter the fact that this is the scientific method.3. Your ready discounting of the peer review process has echoes of Thomas Khun. However, Khun would have readily admitted both the value and the appropriateness of the process for most science. Khun's arguments for rejection of old concepts and their revolutionary replacement - paradigm shifts, in his terminology - were restricted to situations where there were many more questions than answers, and the few answers were ambiguous, or in some other way unsatisfactory.4. You further observe: "The sheer arrogance of people that believe they understand everything and nothing should be questioned never ceases to amaze me. How in the hell are we expected to advance science if doubting the existing structure is not allowed?"I am equally amazed by such arrogance. It is however comparatively rare within science. Anyone holding such viewpoints is generally ridiculed by the scientific community and sooner or later is left behind as imaginative and progressive researchers move their field forward.

The bulk of scientific research is pretty mundane stuff, boring to most outside the field. It involves dotting the i's and crossing the t's of fundamental concepts. This work does not require and does not benefit from "doubting the existing structure" as you call it. Such doubting must be based upon a thorough understanding of that structure. Any cavalier dismissal of that carefully researched and validated structure without evidence of that understanding will justifiably be viewed as pseudoscience, and rightly ignored.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.